unless you have precisely zero morals you practice a religion, dont confuse and conflate popular usage with substance, you have the right to choose your religion, atheist is on that list. Secular humanism is atheist, and it is a religion.
Um there are a couple of pretty obvious problems here even beyond your interpretation that specific language of the first amendment of the constitution. But I think you can stretch your imagination here and see another angle here. Here's a clue. "Freedom of S_____ " Here's another, "Freedom of A_____"
My thoughts. For some reason, the people who claim that God gives us free will are always the one's who want to take away our free will.
No freedom exists, except in so far that the judicial system (with the supreme court as the ultimate, but not the only, arbiter) interprets it as such from existing laws. It is they who decide whether "freedom to" includes "freedom not to". In this case they have, and the statement that atheism is equivalent to a religion for 1st amendment purposes is the way they have done it.
You presume someone who has no religion cannot be moral? That's an absurd statement. It has no basic in logic, reason, etc.
It exists for the sake of the argument. You are free to live in America, live in Sweden. YOu are free to start a business, ou are free to use deodorant or not use it, you are free. Sure, there are limits to freedom, it's called laws, rules and regulations. But that doesn't negate freedom. I am free to reject the existence of God, and not call that a religion. I am free to be a Bhuddist, some of whom call it a religion, others of whom do not. If I want to call it a religion, that is my choice, if I want to call it a way of life, that is my choice. I am free to call myself a women, when biology says I am a man. I am free to do whatever the **** I want, as long as it doesn't harm people and is not illegal. We are a free country. That's as good as freedom will ever get, and to argue otherwise is to have a chip on your shoulder, verbally speaking.
Fair enough, I should probably have been more clear. I refer exclusively to protection of freedom, as I did in the first post of mine you quoted. I'm not 100% certain freedom is even a meaningful concept outside of that (unless we spend some more time drawing lines in the sand). If we're not concerned with what is legal, aren't we actually free to do harmful and even illegal things as well?
To what end? Where would such a venture arrive but at the United Monastery Of America with everyone in perpetual supplication for the resurrection of the power of free choice? Where would it leave agnostics or sabbath day Christians who the other six days are for all intent and purpose, Atheists.
Judges have gotten away with jury tampering by nullifying juries, because in this country the jury is the final arbiter of the law NOT the supreme court. Thats just another stupid meaningless atheist jingo. So is catholic, protestant, lutheran, quakers, satanism, atheist secular humanism, baptists, they are ALL equivalent to a religion under the 14th amendment. Atheists think that because the guv is hiding the fact that they have no authority to even judge what is a religion, that because they state the jurisdiction they are exceeding that it only applies to atheism, it applies to all religions recognized by the us guv. It would be absurd if that was what I actually said. Religion is not based in 'popular usage' of the word in the dictionary. The state uses a substance test to determine what is and what is not a religion. Religion or not is based on its elemental substance, what ingredients were used in its construction. What I said was everyone not in a coma has a religion, 'in substance', regardless what label they want to claim. Yes people have been converted from under the yoke slaves to the modern 'free range' model of slavery. Its called slavery too. Where shall we draw that line? People are free to claim a cat is turnip too. All religions express "a way of life". Nothing stopping you from doing whats illegal as well. Not by any stretch of the imagination! The Bill of Rights is the memorandum of the Rights that We The People Reserved on to ourselves contracted we made with the guv to be governed. These 'reserved rights' have been long since usurped, converted to privileges, removed from us, and overrun by the despot us guv with the 14th amendment. (Spies v US, Dyer v Utah) The constitution of the US grants absolutely NO as in ZERO freedoms!
missed the edit window, that should have said 'rights', it does grant freedom with respect to the organization of guv, ie voting rights, is a freedom 'under' da guv, not a human right as stated in the BoR. This country has been so dumbed down with propaganda over the years most people are completely clueless about the difference between rights/privileges, liberty etc.
You're confused. A judge has the right to redirect a jury's verdict, when he believes justice is not being served. That does not equal 'jury tampering' which is illegal. Moreover, any jury verdict can be appealed, and an appeal can be challenged to a higher court, then a higher court until it is taken to the Supreme Court. That's the law and you are wrong on that point. Did you mean 'lingo'? I ask because your use of the term 'jingo' is a malapropism, as written, unless you meant 'atheist jingoism'. IF that is what you meant, then know that history is replete with both atheist and theist jingos. https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/religion\ The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment. Here is what you wrote: unless you have precisely zero morals you practice a religion, dont confuse and conflate popular usage with substance, you have the right to choose your religion, atheist is on that list. Secular humanism is atheist, and it is a religion. Now, that might have been what you thought you said, but the only logical inference that can be drawn from your statement is that the only people who are moral are those who have a religion. But, let's put that aside and I'll accept your correction of what you meant. Now you say everyone not in a coma has a religion, whether they think so or not. That is an absurd statement. No religion is required to be moral. Agnostics are moral, on the whole. What you are saying is that 'being moral' equals 'being religious'. You can believe that, if you want, but you are redefining religion. Agnosticism is the absence of religion AND atheism, NOT the 'rejection' of both, where atheism is the rejection of belief in God. An agnostic just doesn't consider them, is not party to any acceptance of religion or rejection of religion. With your claim, there is no difference between the terms 'atheist' and 'agnostic'. But, the terms exist in the English lexicon, each with distinct meanings. An agnostic is not religious has no 'belief system' but who can be just as moral as anyone else. One thing that history is replete with, are immoral religious people. Incompetent retort; weasel words (vague rant styled generalities ) are non arguments. You are implying laws, rules, and regulations, etc, equal 'slavery'. Correct? The premise is absurd. Doesn't negate, nor mitigate, the point. Doesn't negate the freedom one owns to call his or her 'way of life' as a religion, or not. Wrong, the law will stop you, eventually, from doing illegal things. If you are lucky, you might get away with it. Trump has been getting away with it, so far. Such quotes are precisely why I am an agnostic, because the implication you are making is that abiding by laws equals enslavement. If that is true, then what does, in fact, equal freedom? Given your implication, it would seem that freedom only exists with anarchy. However, in Anarchy, I am free to kill you with impunity. So, I see no freedom in that. These arguments are stupid and relying on philosophers can be, if this is your example, driving existence into some very stupid places. I am not one who speak for Goethe, and I will give him the benefit of the doubt that your implication is not what he is saying. But you are saying he is saying that, and whatever that is, it's stupid. Those who are not seasoned in the fine art of highbrow language should abstain from such lest they wave the flag of the novice wordsmith. Your syntax is horrific, in other words. Congratulations, that is a text book example of Reductio ad absurdum Apparently you didn't get the memo, 'George Carlin is a comedian' As in 'entertainer'. NOT preacher, philosopher, conveyer of wisdom. The joke is above the message, at all times, with comedians. What that means is that a comedian can tell us some truth,and though that is true, but because the joke is more important than the message, you would be a fool to upgrade and thus trust the words of a comedian to anything beyond mere entertainment. There are hybrids, such as Bill Maher, who flips from two states, one, as a pundit, the other as a comedian, but he tells us when is is switching. But Carlin is always an entertainer, first. Take heed when you cite comedians for your 'truth'. The Constitution is the quintessential document, the very embodiment of that concept known as 'liberal democracy'. You message clearly reveals the mindset of a cynic. Sorry, you are therefore dismissed.
I can't imagine any judge interpreting Constitutional law that way. They always take the side of liberty when doing so, it seems to me, and in this case that means protecting freedom from religion the same as freedom of religion.
thats not the correct pecking order 1) their power/authority hands down their first consideration in any case 2) will a ruling against liberty cut into their personal liberty 3) selling their opinion to the public with seemingly often pretentious plausible rhetoric 4) gross violation of the constitution or law. Atheists operate on nifty solganism, freedom of religion is in fact freedom from religion. I agree 100%! They dont get it however, hence the sloganism.
It's not clear what you mean by, "no religion," since @Kokomojojo was, in the context of those comments, making the argument that "atheism," was a religion. I think the common sense gist of his point, if perhaps not beyond literalist, semantic indictment, was that whatever concepts propel one through life, whatever values one has, constitute, in effect, their religion. By this definition, everyone has a religion, hence it is not any more absurd to say that one need a religion in order to have morals-- which I don't think he literally said but, no matter-- than it would be to say that, speaking about the subset of creatures implied by (or at least taken to be implied by the majority of respondents) this thread, to whom the U.S. Constitution might specifically apply, one must be a human being to have morals (with which statement, were a person including all animals, I would very much disagree; but Kokomo was clearly restricting his comments, as does the Constitution, to the human species). It turns out, from your later post, that the SCOTUS does define religion differently: So, while you are correct that, by that definition, a person need not have a religion in order to be moral; I just thought it ironic to note that, also by that definition, having a religion would not mean that a person, necessarily, had any morals, whatsoever. I will give you an example: if I have a sincere and meaningful belief that my purpose in life is to serve the All-powerful internet, by filling up space with my ramblings, this would not require morals, but it would qualify as a religion. My believing that no one in the world was real, except for me & my Teddy bear-- my nickname for Theodora-- also constitutes "religion,'' without necessitating, "morality." Just playing my part.
You can't have it both ways. Unless you have a reason to condemn it, being something that you have no appreciation for, is not sufficient, in my mind, to render such judgement upon it, as you do. That is, there is a world of difference between saying, "I don't see any value in X," and saying, "X has no value." Do you follow? I think this is an inaccurate analogy to what you do, in your thread. Here is a taste: ↑gabmux said Look around...what has religion done for humanity? People still killing each other off...still greedy, selfish, egotistical bast**ds. <Snip> So, a more realistic parallel would be your approaching your neighbors-- who have their beloved dog, lying in state, surrounded by a de facto temple of sacred images of the animal with the family, flowers, its favorite toys, candles, dog chews, and the like, which they kneel around, together, every evening at dusk-- and as some are still wiping years from their eyes, you begin complaining (or announcing, if you prefer) to them that their mangy mutt is really starting to stink up the place, and besides, he's really not deserving of all their fuss, since he was never worth a damn, to begin with, so how 'bout let's get rid of this eyesore, that you're sick of looking at, and just throwing it's body in a hole; then try to forget the drooling, clumsy, always under foot, dirty, flea bag ever existed.
One can argue whether 'atheism' is a religion. Whether it is or isn't, doesn't matter. Agnostics are not religious: agnostics do not have a religion. Agnostics can, indeed, be moral, That fact destroys the argument presented by @Kokomojojo who is basically saying, 'if you are moral, you are religious, i.e., it's impossible to not be religious' which, in my view, is a falsehood. The error in logic Kokomojojo made was he thought religion and atheism covered everyone. He forgot about the agnostic, who are, indeed, not religious, and writ large, most are moral folks. I did, has you done, indicate that there are religious people who are immoral, and history is replete with examples.
If I make a statement that says..... that is making an observation....stating my own opinion. If you wish to call it condemnation....that is your opinion. What I find interesting is that you claim not to need religion yourself, and yet you behave as if this thread has offended you. Also there are currently similar threads in the "religion" category like... http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/what-is-the-point-of-the-bible.590828/ http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/so-god-wrote-a-book.590087/page-6#post-1072845812 http://politicalforum.com/index.php...lly-fairy-tales.590783/page-2#post-1072840747 none of which you have expressed any objection to. Lol...yes I truly enjoy the infinite creativity. There are countless stories to be told. Mine is just a bit simpler than yours..... My son's dog died. He mourned his loss for hours. When suggested it was time to bury his old friend... he reluctantly agreed.
Atheism is already against God's law.. would have to suck to either wake up in a place with no stimuli whence you will beg for fire and brimstone just to feel something
Thank you for the clarification. I had assumed only that you had been translating kokomojojo's words in a stricter sense than they'd been intended. So, now knowing your actual reasoning, can I ask for more elaboration from you, on your very significant distinguishing between atheists & agnostics? I say this, not as a criticism, but it seems to me odd, to think of the two in such starkly different ways. Let me be clear that this is nothing on which I've done any academic research, so I've no basis to claim that you're not absolutely correct. But, since you didn't give much of a primer explanation, for those of us who haven't focused on this distinction, your going into more detail would be very interesting to me, and I would wager helpful for many, if only to understand the perspective you briefly described, in this reply (above). Thanks.
Aren't you the one who continually charged me (incorrectly) of making my arguments about you, and not the ideas in your thread? And yet, in this thread about a different topic-- despite your claim that you would never take someone else's thread on off-topic jaunts-- you continually try to bring the discussion back to me. If we are going a bit off-topic, let us, at least, keep to our arguments, as we are supposed to, OK? But, as I think you noted, during your thread, & as my colorful vignette about the revered, if deceased, faithful companion, in my last post, should have suggested, I had pointed out to you that it was not really your place to direct the spiritual paths of others (including, telling them that they are following dead ends). While this idea can be expressed, on a debate forum, there is a difference between doing so respectfully, and being as pompous as those whom one is in the midst of...expressing disapproval with their methods?-- if you will not concede condemning the past religious leaders, who've directed their flocks in all the "ungodly," behaviors which you cite, in your thread. This same idea is in the quote, to which you are hear, presumably, replying: DEFinning said: ↑ ... being something that you have no appreciation for, is not sufficient, in my mind, to render such judgement upon it, as you do. That is, there is a world of difference between saying, "I don't see any value in X," and saying, "X has no value..." The rising tenor of my objections was, in part, due to your ignoring every attempt of mine, to get this point across. Not for my sake. But for what I deem to be an accepted norm of propriety. I did not go into your thread, thinking that you were one of those posters who have no regard for the feelings of others. And there you have got me to address your personal, off-topic question. So please let that suffice.
I'm here because you summoned me here. Why else would you include an "@" character before my name in your off topic post below.... .....which, true to form, you included the misinformation underlined above... along with your usual stone throwing of course. You are the one who started this sideshow.... but you still haven't addressed the actual post below....
I can follow very well thank you.... the question is can you read?? Look at the very first line of the topic below.... I suspect that saying...."I see no purpose for it."...is pretty darn close to..."I don't see any value in X" Wouldn't you agree?
